PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 1, 20250 citations

A Rapid Prediction Tool for Aerodynamic Heating in High-Speed Aircraft Design

View Full Paper
MKMurat KeçeciYKYavuzer KarakuşRBRamin Barzegar

Key Points

  • The tool dramatically reduces analysis time from 130 hours to just 1-3 minutes while maintaining reliability.
  • Validated against CFD analyses, the tool's temperature differences were minimal at up to 2% at Mach 3, ensuring accurate predictions.
  • It utilizes experimental correlations for heat transfer coefficients and wall temperatures across various geometries like cones and wedges.
  • The implementation allows for time-dependent and steady-state predictions under high-velocity flow conditions, enhancing design efficiency.

Abstract

Abstract In the preliminary design phase of supersonic aircraft, rapid iteration of aerodynamic characteristics is crucial. To reduce dependence on time-consuming CFD analyses, a prediction tool for aerodynamic heating was developed. The goal was to create a tool that accurately estimates aerodynamic heating on aircraft surfaces during conceptual design. Using analytical solutions and experimental correlations, the tool calculates wall temperature, heat transfer coefficient, and heat flux for geometries like wedges, cones, and flat plates. Implemented in MATLAB, it provides both time-dependent and steady-state predictions for subsonic, transonic, and supersonic aircraft. The tool accounts for various shock configurations, focusing on detecting detached shocks, critical for cone-shaped structures. It models components such as noses (cone), leading edges (wedges), and wings/fuselages (flat plates) under high-velocity flow conditions. Validated against CFD analyses and flight test data, the tool ensures reliability, offering significant time and cost savings. For example, while a CFD analysis took 130 hours, the tool delivered results in just 1-3 minutes. Shock angle and temperature differences between the tool and CFD analyses were minimal, with a maximum temperature difference of 2% at Mach 3. These results confirm the tool’s effectiveness and practicality for supersonic aircraft design.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Keçeci et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68dd91cffe798ba2fc498d45https://doi.org/10.1115/ht2025-154242
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper